Certain parts of the combat rules sure, but nearly everything else is different that I've seen at least in one way or another.
I think we both have slightly different ideas of what consists a new edition and what is just a minor update, so we're unlikely to agree, due to different perspectives. I'm happy to continue the discussion, of course, but agreeing to disagree is how it'll likely end
Air of Authority is not the same from DH (where a command-10 can make you boss almost anyone) to RT (where it's some sort of Master Orator copycat)
At any rate, the switch of mechanics with BC/OW is what really got people in conflict. Like a..Schism.
Edited by BraddocTo be perfectly honest, I have two copies sitting on my shelf and I doubt I'll be running it again. I ran a single session a few weeks ago and rediscovered all of the reasons that I don't like the 40kRPG system- including most of my modifications to Living 2.3.
I was planning to work on a 40kRPG in which the players were members of a noble house, taking inspiration from ASIOF RPG and Houses of the Blooded, but I don't have the drive anymore. I've really had to challenge my game design philosophies in the past couple months and I found that the DH2e system really doesn't match any of that criteria- like, at all.
The 40k community is really massive, potentially even larger than the D&D community, so I'm not surprised that we all have very different mechanical ideas on what we want from an RPG. There's a great Penny Arcade comic out there that sums it up. In the end, I guess it's great that we disagree- but when Dark Heresy 2e emerged from the Council of Nicaea, a large amount of us did feel alienated.
But also, I seriously think that we need to talk about the relationship between game designers, as artists, and their corporate interface- particularly in relation to this absolutely bizarre artform called "roleplaying games," in which it is implied that the player group has complete agency over themselves- not the company whose product they're using. Why do we want strictly defined rulesets from an authoritative source if the artform is about celebrating collaborative agency and expression? Could it have something to do with the structure of the GM-Player relationship which is the standard model for roleplaying games?
Because, really, any system inherently involves social power-dynamics- which begins to look really strange with a GM at the table.
Edited by KainusTo be perfectly honest, I have two copies sitting on my shelf and I doubt I'll be running it again. I ran a single session a few weeks ago and rediscovered all of the reasons that I don't like the 40kRPG system- including most of my modifications to Living 2.3.
I was planning to work on a 40kRPG in which the players were members of a noble house, taking inspiration from ASIOF RPG and Houses of the Blooded, but I don't have the drive anymore. I've really had to challenge my game design philosophies in the past couple months and I found that the DH2e system really doesn't match any of that criteria- like, at all.
The 40k community is really massive, potentially even larger than the D&D community, so I'm not surprised that we all have very different mechanical ideas on what we want from an RPG. There's a great Penny Arcade comic out there that sums it up. In the end, I guess it's great that we disagree- but when Dark Heresy 2e emerged from the Council of Nicaea, a large amount of us did feel alienated.
But also, I seriously think that we need to talk about the relationship between game designers, as artists, and their corporate interface- particularly in relation to this absolutely bizarre artform called "roleplaying games," in which it is implied that the player group has complete agency over themselves- not the company whose product they're using. Why do we want strictly defined rulesets from an authoritative source if the artform is about celebrating collaborative agency and expression? Could it have something to do with the structure of the GM-Player relationship which is the standard model for roleplaying games?
Because, really, any system inherently involves social power-dynamics- which begins to look really strange with a GM at the table.
Seriously dude, you are overthinking this.
It's a game. With rules. As GM, pick from them what you like and discard what you don't like. Like with every other RPG out there.
Not much difference between the editions? Let's break it down & take a look.
Comparison Between 1e & 2e
There is no doubt that 2e is an evolutionary edition, versus the revolutionary edition that the first DH beta was - but there is simply a ton of new material in this book...a ton . (And the artwork is fantastic.)
Cheers
Comparing DH1 to DH2, yes, it's a massive change, altering practically every aspect of the system while maintaining a cozy level of familiarity. Once again, as a standalone product, DH2 is as solid as it gets. The mechanics are perfectly playable and comprehensive enough to allow for a wide range of scenarios, the setting material is solid, and it's a gorgeous book overall. Those who never played 40kRPG before, or those who only played DH1 should not be disappointed buying this book (as usual, mileage may vary depending on personal tastes that objectively can't be accounted for).
The problem is with people such as myself, who own all the 40k corebooks up to date and most sourcebooks as well, and who utilize this wealth of material in all their 40k games. Because if you already know all the systems up to date, DH2 looks a lot less impressive as an addition to your library. There are still changes, but compared to Only War (the previous corebook), they're mostly cosmetic.
I actually read through that long list. "New maps", really?
Trying too hard.
(In other words, any attempts at objective comparisons lose their worth when you use a bunch of buzzwords like "cool" and "clever".)
One could just as easily pick out less skills, less talents and consider it a devolution. One could take "easier medical healing" and wonder why a previously hard game suddenly became so much easier. One could take a look at the overall nerf in weapons damage and wonder, wonder hard, why the toughness/armour mechanic has been amplified, instead of dealt with. There are plenty of sound reasons to dislike the new edition or advise against buying. The chief one for DH1 fans is that it as yet fails to address actual problems in the system and makes the game easier.
Edited by DeathByGrotzI actually read through that long list. "New maps", really?
Trying too hard.
I'd say just a really well thought out argument for the affirmative.
As for me I love it but I can see both sides of the argument and because they come from different perspectives both sides are correct in their own ways.
Whether or not it's a good product at the end of the day will be determined by its popularity and longevity.
One could take a look at the overall nerf in weapons damage(...)
Erm, what? That never happened.
DH2e weapons which have been changed from prior rulesets have tendentially lower damage and penetration than DH1.
I'm not seeing it in my copy. Are you sure you're not talking about the long-abandoned first beta, which indeed had completely different and generally lower damage values?
The notable changes which weren't part of prior editions are pretty heavy nerfs for melta weaponry and a damage decrease for heavy stubbers. Frag nades have a blast radius reduction. The rest is mostly from Only War, including the much lauded sniper rifle replacement for the hunting rifle.
Meltaguns are exactly the same as they were in Only War, and actually much better than they were in DH1 and Rogue Trader.
Heavy stubbers went down by one point of damage, which isn't that significant... and again, are identical with OW ones.
Frag Grenades have the following blast radii between systems: DH1: Blast 4, RT: Blast 4, OW: Blast 3, DH2: Blast 5. So they actually got better in 2e.
Notably, all the things you talk about are correct... if we're talking about the discontinued first beta, which is nothing like the final DH2 looks like.
Not to mention linear percentile roll mechanics are a horrible way to express the likelihood of events happening.
Combat is still the main mechanical focus in a game that claims to be about investigation. Moreover, the combat rules add unnecessary elements best left to a table top wargame. My group groans at the phrase roll initiative, just because we know we are in for 2 hours of a 3 hour session wasted resolving 5 rounds of combat.
I wasn't in the beta, but the longer I play and run (which has been years of campaigning now), the more likely I am to import the rules from the Firefly RPG or Fate.
No one goes to their friends excited about the rules for any 40k rpg. It's just the medicine we have to swallow to get to play in a 40k property. And they just changed the second edition medicine flavor from cherry to grape, instead of making something that doesn't feel like medicine.
Actually, I've been a fan of Warhammer's percentile die ever since I first played it in WFRP 1e (yeah, that's the one from 1986). I can honestly say it's current incarnation (basically the version with all the changes introduced in Black Crusade and continued in OW and DH2) is one of my favorite mechanics of all times. The people I play with generally share my opinion on the subject, and at least some of us are genuinely excited with every new release (myself included, with a weird sorta-exception of 2e, because, again, bad taste in my mouth from the beta).
So please don't try to lend extra weight to your personal opinions by claiming everyone shares them.
Meltaguns are exactly the same as they were in Only War, and actually much better than they were in DH1 and Rogue Trader.
Heavy stubbers went down by one point of damage, which isn't that significant... and again, are identical with OW ones.
Frag Grenades have the following blast radii between systems: DH1: Blast 4, RT: Blast 4, OW: Blast 3, DH2: Blast 5. So they actually got better in 2e.
Notably, all the things you talk about are correct... if we're talking about the discontinued first beta, which is nothing like the final DH2 looks like.
Actually, I'm beginning to think the person I asked for the weapon values over skype to check up on them made a lot of typoes.
First off, seconhand knowledge isn't the best to present in a discussion.
Second it's skype, what does typing have to do with it?
Just had a look and the values in the actual DH2 book are as I originally put them out. Was there an errata or something?
Just had a look and the values in the actual DH2 book are as I originally put them out. Was there an errata or something?
Meltagun from the original beta: 2d10+4 Pen 3
Meltagun from DH2 final: 2d10+10 Pen 12
What book are you looking at?
I bet diamonds against walnuts he means the first beta.
Nope, this is from a copy second ed., final. The melta thing was a reading error(it happens), but the frag nade blast radius is definitely 3. If it's not, it'd be great to know if we missed an errata somehow. Hence why I asked.
Edited by DeathByGrotz
To be perfectly honest, I have two copies sitting on my shelf and I doubt I'll be running it again. I ran a single session a few weeks ago and rediscovered all of the reasons that I don't like the 40kRPG system- including most of my modifications to Living 2.3.
I was planning to work on a 40kRPG in which the players were members of a noble house, taking inspiration from ASIOF RPG and Houses of the Blooded, but I don't have the drive anymore. I've really had to challenge my game design philosophies in the past couple months and I found that the DH2e system really doesn't match any of that criteria- like, at all.
The 40k community is really massive, potentially even larger than the D&D community, so I'm not surprised that we all have very different mechanical ideas on what we want from an RPG. There's a great Penny Arcade comic out there that sums it up. In the end, I guess it's great that we disagree- but when Dark Heresy 2e emerged from the Council of Nicaea, a large amount of us did feel alienated.
But also, I seriously think that we need to talk about the relationship between game designers, as artists, and their corporate interface- particularly in relation to this absolutely bizarre artform called "roleplaying games," in which it is implied that the player group has complete agency over themselves- not the company whose product they're using. Why do we want strictly defined rulesets from an authoritative source if the artform is about celebrating collaborative agency and expression? Could it have something to do with the structure of the GM-Player relationship which is the standard model for roleplaying games?
Because, really, any system inherently involves social power-dynamics- which begins to look really strange with a GM at the table.
Seriously dude, you are overthinking this.
It's a game. With rules. As GM, pick from them what you like and discard what you don't like. Like with every other RPG out there.
From Designer X's satirical Violence: A Game of Egregious and Repulsive Blooshed
After many years of laboring in the vineyards of game design, holding aloft the Platonic Ideal of what the Ars Ludorum can achieve and working for the time when games shall be universally acknowledged as the premier form of the age, as the 20th century acknowledged film and the 19th century the novel- I have come to an unutterably grim and depressing realization.
You puerile adolescent and post-adolescent scum don't give a tinker's cuss.
Actually, I've been a fan of Warhammer's percentile die ever since I first played it in WFRP 1e (yeah, that's the one from 1986). I can honestly say it's current incarnation (basically the version with all the changes introduced in Black Crusade and continued in OW and DH2) is one of my favorite mechanics of all times. The people I play with generally share my opinion on the subject, and at least some of us are genuinely excited with every new release (myself included, with a weird sorta-exception of 2e, because, again, bad taste in my mouth from the beta).
So please don't try to lend extra weight to your personal opinions by claiming everyone shares them.
No accounting for taste...but the fact that game is using a mechanic first used in 1986 which has never been copied or reproduced except by other GW licensees is pretty telling. It's a tired system and people who are not set in their ways, who were born after the Carter presidency can see that.
Seriously, look around the internet and see how many people have adapted this line into other systems. It's seriously medicine to a majority of the users.
I must add that the 40K RPG system is extremely easy to homebrew. You can literally swap stuff between the 2nd edition and the first Beta, add entirely new bits, and wrap the whole thing into a setting that isn't very 40k at all, and the system will be fine. Been there, done that, turning DH2 into a post-cyberpunk game where everyone is a psyker, characters have auto-hitting + one-shot-one-kill guns, sentient robots are playable characters took us something like three lazy afternoons and we had a blast with the very first session.
That's because it's based on BRP.